I’m referring to the accumulation of quality writing on the Internet, which I don’t think it’s controversial to argue comprises a “soul” of some kind. This valuable core is increasingly drowned in regurgitated rigmarole, especially on Medium.

Granted, this isn’t a new phenomenon, but on Medium it’s reached DEFCON proportions, and on the Internet in general it’s a process that’s hastening as a result of the ease of publishing on social media. In the past, it took effort to get something online, which had a way of upping the quality bar ever so slightly. Now, anybody and his pet salamander can publish a self-help article, though “republish” is probably more accurate given that these authors have a very warped view on what it means to create something.

I realize there are elements of human nature here that have existed for millennia, but there’s also a relatively new phenomenon: using “content” as a kind of loss-leader for one’s virtual popularity, exploiting the ease of publishing by regurgitating a massive quantity of unoriginal material without regard for originality, solely to garner likes.

As for the title’s being hyperbolic, if you accept the premise that there is a valuable core of the Internet — things beloved by many, things we would never want removed — then it’s not exaggeration to argue that an inundation of noise will proportionately deplete that core. This is especially true given the rising problem of discoverability across platforms.